ShupFace

I was reading a review of Mass Effect 2 over at Gamasutra and this really jumped out at me:

In a recent Gamasutra interview, BioWare’s Adrien Cho said the team “wanted to make sure that absolutely every issue [critics and players] brought up was addressed.” In that light, the changes make sense; almost all of them result in less hassle. They also decrease the player’s input in how the game is played, at least after the initial class selection.

So are these systemic changes good or bad, on balance? It depends on what you liked (or didn’t) about the first game. If Mass Effect was a sci-fi shooter saddled with excess RPG micromanagement, Mass Effect 2 is the ideal evolution. If Mass Effect was an RPG that tips its hat to third-person action games, Mass Effect 2 may be less satisfying than expected.

While I complained about all the talking in Dragon Age and avoided all the side missions, I have the opposite problem with Mass Effect 2. It feels like a cover shooter with some RPG elements tacked on. I like the core and loyalty missions, but after a while the gameplay just starts to get a bit same-same: shoot, shoot, shoot. There are no levels like Noveria, from the first Mass Effect, requiring diplomacy and conversation.

I also hate the new resources mini-game, but I can’t decide if it’s worse than driving the Mako all over the place.